I am convinced that the current world wide rise of (right wing ) populist movements is mainly caused by social media. By regulating like this my hope is we can reduce their spread.
I'm not convinced social media is to blame. Plenty of extremist movements have arisen throughout history without social media. Politics has been bad for a long long time before social media existed.
Consolidation of all kinds of media (social, print, TV, radio, etc.) is a big ingredient in this. Another ingredient is the enshitification of the net, along with the value of unfettered collection of user data.
The problem isn't that people are consuming (social) media, it's that everything is owned by so few people. We shouldn't be punished for this by having to submit to even more surveillance.
What's wrong with right wing populist movements? They come and go just like left wing populist movements. The pendulum swinging across both the political spectrums over election cycles is a thing of beauty.
Because real democracy is using censorship and authoritarian measures to repress political dissent. Is your democracy textbook from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea? What an absolute clown. I don't care where you stand on the political spectrum: what you are suggesting is the exact opposite of democracy.
Populist movements are the opposite of a threat to democracy; they represent the actual views of the people, not the views of some cultured elite. Real democracy, not some republican elitism.
The flip side of that, is that the same sense of urgency that flings populists into power also compels them to start to bend the systems that got them there in order to maintain power.
After all, if the evil "elites" -- as if populists don't comprise their own elite class -- ever gain power again they could undo all of our "progress".
You can see this tendency in how some red states, like Texas, have tried to furiously redraw their maps to maintain control of the US house. They are doing this because they fear that "the people" will not choose to give them a majority again. They even admit to it openly. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/07/15/trump-five-seat-pic...
California had a state wide vote to do the same thing. But they were acting in kind. Tit-for-tat is a reasonable strategy what Texas did. Though it remains a shame that it came to it.
Cumulatively, these actions represent a breakdown of the machinery in our system that allows us to course correct. It's not healthy for anyone.
Planned markets lead to bad economic outcomes, why? Because when you fix prices you lose the ability to react appropriately to changing conditions. Managed democracies lead to bad social outcomes for the same reason. You need reasonably fair elections in order to sense the condition of the population and react to it.
Yet, populist rhetoric ups the emotional ante to the point where it starts to convince people that it's a good idea to subvert this. The old "Flight 93 Election" essay from 2016 is the perfect case study in this sort of absurd rhetorical escalation. Where they literally said, if Trump doesn't win America is doomed forever. We have to "charge the cockpit" before the plane crashes, so to speak.
Yet, when he lost in 2020, America didn't end forever. It's all been a farce and a grab for power.
Social media is just decentralised information flow. Populist movements are rising because people are finally seeing how absolutely exploited they are by the elites, because the elites no longer have complete centralised control over the flow of information.
Content sourcing is decentralized, sure, content distribution is not. Through curation, one can craft a narrative without even needing to pay propagandists to write copy.
Besides breaking multiple HN rules, your comment also totally misses the point. It is decentralized with respect to governments and politicians. Which was their entire point.
I am in 1925. One of my political opponents is Adolf Hitler. I think Adolf Hitler shouldn't be allowed to give public speeches promoting Nazism. Is this draconian?
How big of a difference is there? I see lots of 'populist' accounting lavishing praise on Augusto Pinochet (famous for perating death squads) they cheer when people sent to a ultra-security prison in El Salvador (likely illegally), and spam Nick Fuentes on social media. The administration is full of groypers and the DHS twitter handle is now a blatant propaganda account obviously run by a white nationalist.
Does HN spread Fake News? Facebook and Youtube do.
Do you feel bad after using HN? Insta and Facebook it happens.
Does HN collect data to specify marketing? Every other Social Media do.
This is hard to define in laws so e.g. the EU chooses to force concrete measures from the social media pages.
Give me an example of websites on HN, which spread fake news by purpose and it was allowed by the mods even they knew the news / artice / website was spreading fake news.
You have quite an unatenable position (you really think there have never been outright wrong headlines on HN?). Even this very article is (being very generous) clickbait.
Yes? Even newspapers do that. You have never had Gell-Mann when reading something here outside mainstream topics of interest? (e.g. almost anything from outside the US, or health related).
Is this really the criteria you want to use to decide whether to require age checks for a website?
> the EU chooses to force concrete measures from the social media pages.
This just sidesteps the issue of how a website ends up in the list. Today, Reddit. Tomorrow, Discord. Then Github. Eventually, HN.
My news is almost outside of the US as I am not American. (wow this should be sent to r/USDefaultism). So let's say like this: I do read a lot outside of "American mainstream media".
Most good working journalist try to verify claim and statements. This is the opposite to Fake News, Clickbait and Russian state propaganda spread in Social Media because its their business model.
When the owner of DB is owned by the German federal government, they all rule the whole company, who gets the profit? The German federal government? (It's a sign of stupidity to claim DB is privat. It is not. It is not.)
That's why I said it's incredibly corrupt. It's an Aktiengesellschaft which is fully owned by the state, so profits would remain in the ownership of the company and their leadership to do with as they please, e.g. pay themselves whatever bonuses they want . (Or pay out to their shareholders? Lol, nope).
losses get pushed to be picked up by the state/taxes.
" It's an Aktiengesellschaft which is fully owned by the state, so profits would remain in the ownership of the company and their leadership to do with as they please, e.g. pay themselves whatever bonuses they want . "
That's plain wrong. The owner decides which happens to the profits and how much the leadership got paied.
Besides that, it is just rambling. Again calling the DB privatised is a sign of stupidity.
EU commision has a centre right head. Germany has a centre right head. Italy has Meloni. Yet most people in these countries want more social media regulation.
DSA only applies to Social Media doing in Europe. X can leave if they want. But since you believe gay men or jews aren't threated by nazis in Germany i'm not sure how to convince you anyway.
So what? That changes nothing about their policies and views.
Ernst Röhm was one of the most powerful people in early Nazi Germany and famously gay. And still, the NSDAP brutally and systemically persecuted queer people.
You act as if hypocrisy, bigotry, moral flexibility and opportunism weren't core "virtues" of far right populists.
With Röhm you are close to Goodwin. The difference is Röhm was hiding his sexual preferences, while Weidel is pretty open about it. Röhm was killed because of it by his party members. Weidels sexual preference is a non issue for AfD members.
Your comparison with Röhm just shows once more that AfD policies are quite opposite to those of the NSDAP.
what? is this serios? to quote my link from the most major jewish organisation:
"Die Zeit der nationalsozialistischen Gewaltherrschaft mit Millionen getöteter Juden, Sinti und Roma, Homosexueller und politisch Verfolgter ist für den Fraktionsvorsitzenden der AfD lediglich ein „Vogelschiss“. Die darin zum Ausdruck gebrachte Haltung verharmlost in unerträglicher Weise die Gräuel der Geschichte. So wie vor wenigen Jahren bei Pegida oder in Chemnitz laufen AfD-Politiker nun bei Querdenker-Demos neben Hooligans und Rechtsextremen. "
Maybe get out of your buble. Most jewish and gay people despise the AfD. Most jewish and gay people want to leave the country in case of AfD majority. But hey Im talking to an account calling the AfD "most pro-jewish" party.
Yes, that is an opinion you are supposed to have. You are supposed to associate the regime's class enemies with nazis and communists so that their claims can be dismissed without a single rational thought. "They beat up jews and gays!" is a great way to avoid having a difficult conversation about the regime's blatantly hostile policies against their own people.
If you don't care, why do you comment?
Recent actions show the US government cares. And it might be good to know how people would act on the actions.
(Also check your assumption about other countries.)
Interesting, that you equal social media regulation = pro censorship.
Btw every age group over 30 has a majority to imitate Australian model in Germany.
Even lower 30 there is only a small relative majority against it. So no, your hypothesis for Germany
is wrong.
https://www.bild.de/politik/inland/social-media-verbot-deuts...
No it is not necessarily. For example forcing to have a chronical timeline on followers would be strong social media regulation but no censorship even in the broadest terms.
If you want to say "Enforcing regulation equals censorship", that is fine by me. For many, there could be a difference between them, as they reserve censorship to unjust regulation.
That would be a matter of linguistics, and I can't say which of both definitions is true.
Ok but the parent commentator invoked a contract. If there is no consent there is no contract. Simply stating that one is bound by laws isn't a justification, it's just an observation.
The current government constantly violates the consitution, they are still trying to implement Vorratsdatenspeicherung which was ruled illegal by the constitutional court. The former government tried to change how elections work with the goal of kicking out opposition parties. And for the current elections there still wasn't a needed re-count because the organisation that needs to approve a re-count is the current government themselves. How is any of that in line with the consitution? It's ever only an argument when it's the "side I don't like".
It’s funny when people blame opposition for things regime says they would do if they come to power, but tolerate all autocratic tendencies of the current regime. The self-elected one, as you point out.
Edit: self-approved is better term, since without recount of votes we still don’t know if current regime has a majority.
> Which of actual AfD policies are actually far right?
What about most of them? Just look at who they are teaming with in the European Parliament. Or what they say about themselves. That should give you a hint.
> I am ignoring this link since its main source is Corrective, propaganda outlet funded by the German regime.
Right. It’s just what (((they))) want you to believe.
I named various one of them and other provide some links.. You just called the AfD pro-jewish party while most jews despite the party. I think you might just be to check the sources.
To you edit: Again, you are ignoring the issue I raised: Whitewashing nazi issues(not the casual nazi labels we have seen these days, but the actual Nazi Germany) would be considered far right.
This is about the actual fact about whitewashing the actual historical Nazi Germany. So I would take it as you are dodging the question and you are agreeing with my previous criteria:
The people or organization whitewashing the actual historical Nazi Germany issues would be considered as far right.
I am saying the act of whitewashing nazi issues(not the casual nazi labels we have seen these days, but the actual Nazi Germany) would be considered far right. Do you agree that this happened?
No one is calling everyone nazi in this thread. Who are you referring to?
> EDIT: I am ignoring this link since its main source is Corrective, propaganda outlet funded by the German regime.
Well, if you ignore all the evidence you consider inconvenient, you could, you know, read their own self-description as "right wing" and combine that with the observation of them being too right wing for the other right wing parties.
you are here https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/innenpolitik/afd-verfassung...
"EDIT: I am ignoring this link since its main source is Corrective, propaganda outlet funded by the German regime" Maybe they just publish what you don't like. They are a left outlet but certainly not pro government.
I am surprised that for some folks without therapie related problems this is a problem? I do it every week? Is this special now?